UBS Global Asset Management is reviewing its policy of using dealing commissions to pay for corporate access globally, as the European debate over how to pay for investment banking services spreads beyond the region.

The UK Financial Conduct Authority has already banned the use of client commissions to pay for access to company management, and has also thrown its weight behind European proposals - under the revised Markets in Financial Instruments directive – that would put some restrictions on the use of dealing commissions to pay brokers for research.

UBS Asset Management, which oversees assets of Sfr621 billion ($682 billion), is now deciding whether to stop using trading commissions to pay for corporate access across its business globally, according to people familiar with the matter.

A move by such a large investment house would be significant, as asset managers consider how to respond to the regulatory efforts aimed at tackling potential conflicts of interest and improving transparency.

Using dealing commissions for corporate access is still allowed in the US but asset managers in the country have started to take notice of the discussions underway in Europe.

Consultancy Integrity Research Associates published a client note last month on the ripple effects of the moves by UK and European regulators, in which it said: “We have been surprised by reactions from US asset managers… US asset managers are paying attention, and not liking what they are seeing.”

Of the few to have responded so far, opinions are divided. T Rowe Price is one US manager that has already said it will only apply new rules to its UK entity.

The recent moves by regulators have forced fund managers to examine their internal compliance systems both in the realm of paying for corporate access and in understanding exactly how much they are spending on research from the sellside.

Earlier this year the FCA said that of 17 fund managers it studied since late 2013, only two had dealing commission policies in place that it deemed satisfactory.

The bigger debate on the use of dealing commissions centres on how research is paid for.

Earlier this week, UK trade body the Investment Management Association spelled out its opposition to European proposals under Mifid II that would restrict the use of commissions to pay for bespoke research.

At the heart of fund managers’ fears is what one head of research an independent provider called the “nuclear option”; whereby fund managers would have to pay for research out of their own pockets instead of with client money, a move they argue would be a severe hit to their margins.

The IMA said it planned to host a conference for global regulators and financial firms to gather ideas on potential new payment models for research broadly.

The group warned that major changes in Europe or the UK could create “regulatory arbitrage” that would put the UK at a disadvantage.